Tide Mill Institute 2018 symposium

Tide Mill Institute holds its 14th annual conference on November 10, 2018, in Beverly, Massachusetts. The symposium -- "Creating Tide Mills -- Then and Now", features educators, historians, environmentalists, archeologists and others interested in tidal power and its history.

Tide Mill Institute exists to advance the appreciation of tide mill history and technology by encouraging research, by promoting appropriate re-uses of former tide mill sites, and by fostering communication among tide mill enthusiasts. Since 2005, the Institute has held an annual symposium on the past, present, and future uses of tidal energy.

This year's conference topics focus on how humans historically extracted power from the tides, as well as on efforts to use this power again in the current era. Speakers and discussions will address topics including:

• Medieval vertical and horizontal millwheels and their diffusion from mainland Europe.
• Fresh-water tidal rice mills in South Carolina.
• An in-stream tidal device in New York’s East River supplying power to the grid.
• Proposed perpetual tidal power system for Salem Massachusetts.
• A tide mill at the heart of the 1775 Battle of Brooklyn.
• Winter storm surges damage historic tide mills in Massachusetts and New York.
• Recreating gearing features of two early North Shore tide mills.
• A new tidal energy canal for Boston?
• The structure of tide mill dams.

Tide Mill Institute's 2018 symposium will be held on Saturday, November 10, 2018, from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm, at the Cummings Center in Beverly, Massachusetts. Registration materials are available on Tide Mill Institute's website. Lunch is included; attendees are encouraged to register by November 1.

Salem power plant wins market deferral

Federal regulators have granted a request by the developer of a power plant in Salem, Massachusetts, to defer its commitment to provide power to the New England market.  The process reflects challenges inherent to developing power plants in the Boston area, as well as methods to mitigate the impacts of those challenges.

Stacks of the former Salem Harbor Power Station, before its decommissioning.

Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP is in the process of redeveloping the site of a defunct coal-powered generation plant.  The former Salem Harbor Power Station could produce up to 745 megawatts of power, fueled by coal and oil.  In 2010, Footprint identified the site as a potential facility for redevelopment and, on August 3, 2012, it acquired the plant from Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC.  Footprint now plans to build what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has described as two state-of-the art, efficient, low-emission, quick-start natural gas turbine generators; two steam-turbine generators; and two heat-recovery steam generators, including pollution control equipment, with aggregate generating capacity of 674 megawatts.

The New England electricity market compensates generators and other resources for two main products: energy and capacity.  Energy represents the volume of power sold by a market participant (measured in megawatt-hours), while capacity represents the intended full-load sustained output of a facility (measured in megawatts).  Regional grid operator ISO New England, Inc. operates a forward capacity market, under which generators can lock in the payments for capacity several years in advance of actually operating.  This structure is designed to ensure that the region has sufficient generating capacity to meet future needs, as well as to help new generation projects secure financing and be built despite long permitting and construction lead times.

Footprint bid its proposed natural gas power plant into New England's seventh Forward Capacity Auction, also known as FCA7.  That auction was held in February 2013, and gave Footprint a future capacity market revenue stream in exchange for the obligation to provide capacity over a one-year capacity commitment period starting on June 1, 2016.  According to Footprint, it then had 39 months to obtain all necessary permits, secure financing arrangements and complete construction of the plant, a process that had never been tested for a new plant not subsidized or sponsored by a state.

While Footprint secured many of the necessary permits promptly, one permit in particular -- a federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit under the Clean Air Act -- took longer than expected.  Obtaining a PSD permit from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, acting under federally delegated authority, involves a five-phase process: (1) pre-application; (2) application; (3) draft permit preparation; (4) public participation; and (5) final decision to issue or deny a PSD permit.  While Footprint finally obtained its PSD permit -- and survived a last-minute appeal of that permit's issuance -- Footprint says the delay and revenue uncertainty the resulting uncertainty of revenues impaired its ability to finance the project. While Footprint had exercised an option to lock in its capacity rates for five years, without the deferral one full year of stable revenue would be lost, making potential lenders and equity providers unwilling to provide financing.

Under ISO-NE's tariff, a market participant may seek a deferral of its capacity supply obligation if three criteria are met.  First, the resource must first request and receive from ISO-NE a written reliability determination indicating that the absence of the resource's capacity would result in a transmission system reliability issue in both the associated Capacity Commitment Period and the next Capacity Commitment Period.  If ISO-NE makes such a determination, then the resource may file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a one-year deferral of its Capacity Supply Obligation. The resource must include in its filing to the Commission (1) the reliability determination from ISO-NE; (2) a demonstration that the project's development delay is due to factors beyond the control of the resource; and (3) a demonstration that the deferral is critical to the resource's ability to achieve commercial operation.

Footprint applied to the Commission for such a deferral on October 7, 2014.  On December 5, the Commission granted Footprint's request.  The Commission noted that ISO-NE had issued a reliability determination finding that the Footprint facility is needed for reliability in the 2016-2017 Capacity Commitment Period and the subsequent 2017-2018 period, that Footprint had demonstrated that it has failed to achieve commercial operation on time due to factors beyond its control, and that Footprint has demonstrated that the deferral is critical to the Facility’s ability to achieve commercial operation.

Footprint's experience highlights several key dynamics affecting New England power plant development.  The story is framed by the retirement of an aging coal plant and its replacement with natural gas-fired generation, a trend occurring across the U.S.  It features the challenges of securing necessary environmental permits and surviving appeals by project opponents.  Footprint's experience also highlights the features of the New England forward capacity market, and how it affects developers of new power plants.

FERC directs standards requiring utility hardening against physical threat

In the wake of last year's sniper assault on a California electrical substation, federal regulators have initiated a process to require utilities to demonstrate that they have hardened their power plants, transmission lines, and other infrastructure against physical attacks.  Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, to develop reliability standards requiring utilities to address risks due to physical security threats and vulnerabilities.  If NERC adopts reliability standards to protect against physical threats, will the standards improve electric reliability -- and if so, at what cost?

Stacks from a power plant subject to NERC standards rise above a cove in Salem, Massachusetts.

NERC, a not-for-profit entity whose mission is to ensure the reliability of the bulk power system in North America, has been designated as the United States' electric reliability organization.  To carry out this mission, NERC develops and enforces reliability standards for owners and operators of critical electrical infrastructure.  NERC's existing standards span 1,778 pages, and cover issues ranging from personnel training and emergency preparedness to protection against hacking and cyberterrorism. 

Following the April 16, 2013, destruction by intense gunfire of a PG&E Corp. substation in San Jose, California, much attention has fallen on the protection of the U.S. electrical grid against physical threats.  At the federal regulatory level, this attention led the FERC to issue an order on March 7, 2014, directing NERC to adopt additional standards for physical security.  That order prescribes the creation of new standards requiring owners and operators of the so-called Bulk-Power System to take at least three steps to protect physical security:

• First, owners and operators must perform a risk assessment of their system to identify their "critical facilities".  Critical facilities are defined as those that, if rendered inoperable or damaged, could have a critical impact on the operation of the interconnection through instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System.


• Second, owners and operators of critical facilities must evaluate potential threats and vulnerabilities to those facilities.


• Third, owners and operators must develop and implement a security plan to address potential threats and vulnerabilities.

The order directing physical protections standards has prompted at least two sets of questions in the utility industry.  First, will these standards lead to improved reliability?  While the efficacy of the standards will likely only be proven in retrospect, if at all, fears brought to life by the California attack and others have convinced a majority of the Commission that the standards are necessary.

Other questions have arisen about the cost of implementing the standards.  While some defenses against physical threats may be adopted relatively inexpensively -- for example, opaque fencing around critical facilities -- others may prove expensive.  When the possible scope and extent of critical facilities are taken into account, some estimates of the potential cost -- including that of concurring FERC Commissioner John Norris -- rise into the billions.

Under the Commission's order, NERC has until June 5, 2014, to prepare and submit its proposed new reliability standards.

Tidal power past, present, and future at Tide Mill Institute 2013

The Tide Mill Institute held its ninth annual conference this past Friday and Saturday.  About 60 people interested in the past, present, and future of tidal energy gathered at the Topsfield Historical Society's Gould Barn in Massachusetts.  The audience included developers of recreated historic tide mills and modern tidal power projects, inventors of tidal turbine technology, academics, state legislators, historians, architects, and other enthusiasts of tidal power.

Tide Mill Institute's John Goff speaks about historic tide mills in Salem, Massachusetts.

Ocean Renewable Power Company's president and CEO, Chris Sauer, gave the keynote presentation on ORPC's efforts and success in developing modern hydrokinetic tidal power plants in the Gulf of Maine and elsewhere.  Chris described the research and development process that led to ORPC's Turbine Generator Unit or TGU.  He also described the engineering, regulatory, and commercial challenges of developing tidal power plants today, as well as ORPC's approach to overcoming these challenges.

Other presentations included: Professor Kerr Canning's exposition of a tide mill site he discovered on the Apple River in Nova Scotia; Professor Robert Gordon's look at tide mill mechanics at sites in York, Maine; a review of tide mill history on the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, New York, by Angela Kramer of the Brooklyn Historical Society and Proteus Gowanus; and a survey by representatives of local historical societies of tide mills on the North Shore of Massachusetts.

Tide Mill Institute members and attendees also enjoyed displays on historic and modern tide power projects, and informal discussions of archaeological discoveries and modern developments. 

The Tide Mill Institute will hold its 10th annual conference in 2014.

End in sight for New England's largest coal plant

New England's largest coal-fired power plant will close by May 2017, according to its owner.  The Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset, Massachusetts, consists of three coal-fired units and a unit capable of burning natural gas and oil, with a net generating capacity of 1,537.6 megawatts.  Within 4 years, it will follow other large New England coal-fired power plants like Salem Harbor Power Station into history.

The Salem Harbor Power Station in Salem, Massachusetts, scheduled to close in May 2014.

The forces leading to Brayton Point's closure have been gathering for years.  The U.S. energy industry is in the midst of a revolution led by affordable and abundant natural gas supplies.  Meanwhile, tighter environmental regulations on air emissions from coal-fired power plants have made these traditionally cheap generators more and more expensive to run.  This past March, Brayton Point's previous owner Dominion Resources Inc. announced plans to sell the plant and two other fossil-fired plants to a subsidiary of Energy Capital Partners LLC.  That deal was consummated in August.

In an effort to keep the plant economic, Energy Capital Partners reportedly worked with regional electricity grid operator ISO New England Inc. on an agreement under which Brayton Point would have been paid for its ability to be called upon to provide electric generating capacity when needed.  But when Brayton Point demanded a higher price for this capacity than ISO New England was willing to offer, the generator submitted papers indicating that it would not provide capacity for the 2017-2018 forward capacity year.

Without those capacity market revenues, Brayton Point's owners have said it will close by May 2017, according to AP reports.  If it does, it will follow Salem Harbor and other coal-fired power plants around the country which have either closed or been converted to natural gas.  What will the future hold for Brayton Point's site in Somerset?  With transmission lines already in place, will it be redeveloped with other energy infrastructure?  What environmental issues will closure or repowering entail?

November 30, 2010 - coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station to close?

To generate electricity, humans rely on a variety of different technologies, ranging from burning coal to make steam, to combined-cycle natural gas turbines, to renewable resources like hydroelectricity and solar photovoltaics.  Over time, the portfolio of energy resources upon which we rely may shift to less environmentally harmful assets.

For an example of how certain generation technologies may fall out of the generation mix, take the planned closing of the Salem Harbor Power Station.  Located in Salem, Massachusetts (a city that sports solar photovoltaic-powered trash compactors on its sidewalks), this plant is one of several coal-fired power plants closing scheduled for the coming years.  Since it started operations in 1951, the Salem Harbor Power Station has expanded and now generates 745 megawatts by burning coal and oil.  Although the plant, currently owned by Dominion Resources, Inc. has increased its pollution control systems over the years, it was listed as one of the state’s “filthy five” dirtiest power plants in 2000, a hard reputation to shake.  A study by Harvard University researchers at about the same time blamed the plant for 30 premature deaths annually, primarily due to air emissions.

Dominion, which purchased the plant in 2005, took steps to reduce emissions such as switching to lower the sulfur content of the coal burned there.  However, the Salem plant has reportedly received $12 million in investments from Dominion since 2005—a marked contrast with the more than $1 billion Dominion invested into its 1,547 megawatt coal plant at Brayton Point in Somerset, Massachusetts.

As it is often the case, declining investments may result in the demise of production operations.  Also, I have seen in similar context, the declining investments arise in part from declining economics that are to be seen at that facility.  In the case of the Salem Harbor Power Station, the fact that Dominion could not shift the costs of new pollution controls to rate payers made further investment in the plant uneconomic.  As a merchant generator in the ISO New England system, Dominion takes a market clearing price for its power, and thus cannot raise its rates over other resources to cover future increases in pollution control expenses.

The Salem Harbor Power Station is also a good example of how an increase in environmental regulation may lead to higher costs for certain kinds of generation units (in this case, coal-fired generation stations).  Regulatory requirements to improve pollution control result in higher operational costs; these higher costs may in turn make even a relatively low fuel cost unit (such as coal) comparatively uneconomic.  By comparison, once pollution controls are imposed on coal-burning units, the fact that renewable units such as wind or hydro or natural gas-fired units may not require such expensive pollution controls makes them relatively more economic.

Over time, it seems the balance has shifted, the generation mix will shift piece by piece as less economic units such as the Salem plant close, and new more economic units come online.  Note that this does not always mean that the price of power goes down; rather, in this case, it is not that wind and hydro got cheaper, nor natural gas, but rather that the cost of coal now includes more expensive pollution control requirements, making it less economic.  In 2009, coal fueled 12.8% of the New England portfolio; we shall soon see what 2010 has brought.

One other note on what happens if the Salem Harbor Station goes dark:  ISO New England is now studying how to replace the plant, and true to its mission, is considering increasing transmission system upgrades in the region.  This is an interesting example of how ISO New England focuses on transmission solutions — perfectly natural given its mandate — to replace a generation asset.  While not all generation assets can be effectively replaced by transmission solutions, transmission between a remote generation resource and load may serve to replace at least some generation assets.  Whether this will be correct in Salem remains to be seen.  Within five years, the Salem station may be closed.